Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], terry mcintyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes - Original Message From: Rémi Coulom [EMAIL PROTECTED] For instance, against computers, I estimate that Crazy Stone improved about 3 stones between this summer and now. But it clearly did not improve 3 stones on KGS. I vaguely remember that Sylvain also noticed that MoGo could beat GNU go with a 4-stone handicap, but was only 2 stones stronger than GNU on KGS. We human players have a nasty habit of adapting to the weaknesses of programs, and patching our own. I played a program which totally does not know the Chinese opening. I always wind up playing five large fuseki points, as it slowly plays five stones all on one side of the board. No matter how often I beat it, it will not adapt. Whereas, if a human player gets hit on the head often enough, he'll try something different. I'll bet that if someone ever does write a go-playing program that adapts its play in the light of what happens in the games it plays, I'll eventually be able to train it to make some _really_ bad moves. Nick This may account for improving versus another program, but not so much versus humans. The weaknesses of your computer opponents are more consistent. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Christoph, Your bayeselo rating is 1942 on CGOS. I compiled a table that has all players with 50 games or more which can be found here: http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof2.html - Don Christoph Birk wrote: On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote: Christoph, Let me know when you are finished, what name you are playing under and I will do the bayeselo thing to get a better figure. I am playing using the 'tast-3k' account. Right, now I have 71 games and a rating of 1979 ELO. Also, I can throw out any games that were irregular if you can identify them, such as if a match started when you were not looking or your interface got glitchy or something. Since I added the GUI I lost no games due to software problems. Only a few won games lost to human stupidity :-) I will take a break over the holidays, maybe playing a few more games in the new year, but I guess for my purposes a zero-point 3k-AGA ~=~ 2000 CGOS-ELO is close enough. Unless we get some other (AGA or KGS) rated players it not make sense to get a more precise rating for the scale. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
I'm going to estimate that 100 ELO is roughly 1 rank based on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_ranks_and_ratings This may not hold for 9x9.If a 1 kyu beats a 2kyu about 64% of the time in an even game at 19x19, it doesn't imply that he will do the same at 9x9, but until I have a reason to believe differently I will set this as our first guess in the formula.We can always come back and modify this later. We may be able to borrow KGS data of well established players playing 9x9 games against each other to estimate this. Would anyone like to volunteer to do this? So as it stands, our formula is: 3ky = 1942 cgos_elo dan = (your_elo - 2142) / 100 kyu = -dan + 1 1 Dan = 2242 cgos 1 Kyu = 2142 cgos 2 Kyu = 2042 cgos 3 Kyu = 1942 cgos The strongest bot on CGOS all time list seems to be greenpeep0.5.1 http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/cross/greenpeep0.5.1.html with a rating of 2621. This implies it is almost equal to a 5 Dan player - which doesn't sound right to me.However, this could be fluky since it is as at the extreme end of the scale. It would be great if this same program could play some strong humans at the equivalent time control on KGS at 9x9 and we could adjust the difference between ranks accordingly. I suspect there is more than 100 ELO between ranks at 9x9. - Don Don Dailey wrote: Christoph, Your bayeselo rating is 1942 on CGOS. I compiled a table that has all players with 50 games or more which can be found here: http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof2.html - Don Christoph Birk wrote: On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote: Christoph, Let me know when you are finished, what name you are playing under and I will do the bayeselo thing to get a better figure. I am playing using the 'tast-3k' account. Right, now I have 71 games and a rating of 1979 ELO. Also, I can throw out any games that were irregular if you can identify them, such as if a match started when you were not looking or your interface got glitchy or something. Since I added the GUI I lost no games due to software problems. Only a few won games lost to human stupidity :-) I will take a break over the holidays, maybe playing a few more games in the new year, but I guess for my purposes a zero-point 3k-AGA ~=~ 2000 CGOS-ELO is close enough. Unless we get some other (AGA or KGS) rated players it not make sense to get a more precise rating for the scale. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Don Dailey wrote: We may be able to borrow KGS data of well established players playing 9x9 games against each other to estimate this. Would anyone like to volunteer to do this? Bill Shubert kindly provided this data to me. I am working on a study about rating systems for the game of Go. I expect I will make a preliminary version available in January. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
It would be great if you would provide recommendations for a simple conversion formula when you are ready based on this study. Also, if you have any suggestions in general for CGOS ratings the cgos-developers would be willing to listen to your suggestions. - Don Rémi Coulom wrote: Don Dailey wrote: We may be able to borrow KGS data of well established players playing 9x9 games against each other to estimate this. Would anyone like to volunteer to do this? Bill Shubert kindly provided this data to me. I am working on a study about rating systems for the game of Go. I expect I will make a preliminary version available in January. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Hi Don, There are not enough evidence to believe this. Tast-3k has too few matches against each program, less than ten games and has no matches against strongest programs including Crazy Stone, MoGo and greenpeep. In addition, there seems some bias, that is, his winning rate against gnugo-3.7.10(s) is less than 50% but is 100% against FatMan while their ratings are almost the same, about 1800 ELO. http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/cross/tast-3k.html -Hideki Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm going to estimate that 100 ELO is roughly 1 rank based on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_ranks_and_ratings This may not hold for 9x9.If a 1 kyu beats a 2kyu about 64% of the time in an even game at 19x19, it doesn't imply that he will do the same at 9x9, but until I have a reason to believe differently I will set this as our first guess in the formula.We can always come back and modify this later. We may be able to borrow KGS data of well established players playing 9x9 games against each other to estimate this. Would anyone like to volunteer to do this? So as it stands, our formula is: 3ky = 1942 cgos_elo dan = (your_elo - 2142) / 100 kyu = -dan + 1 1 Dan = 2242 cgos 1 Kyu = 2142 cgos 2 Kyu = 2042 cgos 3 Kyu = 1942 cgos The strongest bot on CGOS all time list seems to be greenpeep0.5.1 http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/cross/greenpeep0.5.1.html with a rating of 2621. This implies it is almost equal to a 5 Dan player - which doesn't sound right to me.However, this could be fluky since it is as at the extreme end of the scale. It would be great if this same program could play some strong humans at the equivalent time control on KGS at 9x9 and we could adjust the difference between ranks accordingly. I suspect there is more than 100 ELO between ranks at 9x9. - Don Don Dailey wrote: Christoph, Your bayeselo rating is 1942 on CGOS. I compiled a table that has all players with 50 games or more which can be found here: http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof2.html - Don Christoph Birk wrote: On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote: Christoph, Let me know when you are finished, what name you are playing under and I will do the bayeselo thing to get a better figure. I am playing using the 'tast-3k' account. Right, now I have 71 games and a rating of 1979 ELO. Also, I can throw out any games that were irregular if you can identify them, such as if a match started when you were not looking or your interface got glitchy or something. Since I added the GUI I lost no games due to software problems. Only a few won games lost to human stupidity :-) I will take a break over the holidays, maybe playing a few more games in the new year, but I guess for my purposes a zero-point 3k-AGA ~=~ 2000 CGOS-ELO is close enough. Unless we get some other (AGA or KGS) rated players it not make sense to get a more precise rating for the scale. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Don Dailey wrote: It would be great if you would provide recommendations for a simple conversion formula when you are ready based on this study. Also, if you have any suggestions in general for CGOS ratings the cgos-developers would be willing to listen to your suggestions. - Don My suggestion would be to tell programmers to use a different login each time they change version or hardware (most do that, already), and use bayeselo to rank the programs. This would be best if combined with a mechanism to recognize that two logins are versions of the same program (for instance, if they use the same password), and avoid pairing them. Regarding correspondance with human ranks, and handicap value, I cannot tell yet. It is very clear to me that the Elo-rating model is very wrong for the game of Go, because strength is not one-dimensional, especially when mixing bots and humans. The best way to evaluate a bot in terms of human rating is to make it play against humans, on KGS for instance. Unfortunately, there is no 9x9 rating there. I will compute 9x9 ratings with the KGS data I have. What I have observed with Crazy Stone is that gaining Elo points against humans is more difficult than gaining Elo points against GNU Go, which is more difficult than gaining Elo points against MC programs, which is more difficult than gaining Elo points against itself. But it is more an intuition than a scientific study. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
I am considering to enforce this basic protocol on the server soon: Programs of the same family will not be paired against each other. A family of programs have the same name up to the first hyphen and the same password. So if I have these programs: Name password ----- Lazarus-1.2foobar Lazarus-1.3foobar Lazarus-1.4foobar Lazarus-1.5winniepooh Then Lazarus-1.5 will be allowed to play either of the other programs listed, but those other programs will not be allow to play each other as they are considered relatives. We cannot prevent programs from playing each other no matter what we do, they can always change the name and password. However this gives the programmers the ability to prevent multiple versions of his program from playing each other if he chooses. Most programmers probably log onto CGOS in order to play other peoples programs. From time to time I have put highly experimental and very different programs on CGOS and I don't care if they play themselves - they are not really different versions of the same program. In this case I always give them different names anyway. I pretty much always use the same password so I can control this easily with the name. - Don Rémi Coulom wrote: Don Dailey wrote: It would be great if you would provide recommendations for a simple conversion formula when you are ready based on this study. Also, if you have any suggestions in general for CGOS ratings the cgos-developers would be willing to listen to your suggestions. - Don My suggestion would be to tell programmers to use a different login each time they change version or hardware (most do that, already), and use bayeselo to rank the programs. This would be best if combined with a mechanism to recognize that two logins are versions of the same program (for instance, if they use the same password), and avoid pairing them. Regarding correspondance with human ranks, and handicap value, I cannot tell yet. It is very clear to me that the Elo-rating model is very wrong for the game of Go, because strength is not one-dimensional, especially when mixing bots and humans. The best way to evaluate a bot in terms of human rating is to make it play against humans, on KGS for instance. Unfortunately, there is no 9x9 rating there. I will compute 9x9 ratings with the KGS data I have. What I have observed with Crazy Stone is that gaining Elo points against humans is more difficult than gaining Elo points against GNU Go, which is more difficult than gaining Elo points against MC programs, which is more difficult than gaining Elo points against itself. But it is more an intuition than a scientific study. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
From time to time I have put highly experimental and very different programs on CGOS and I don't care if they play themselves What I meant to say is that I don't care if they play other programs of mine. - Don Don Dailey wrote: I am considering to enforce this basic protocol on the server soon: Programs of the same family will not be paired against each other. A family of programs have the same name up to the first hyphen and the same password. So if I have these programs: Name password ----- Lazarus-1.2foobar Lazarus-1.3foobar Lazarus-1.4foobar Lazarus-1.5winniepooh Then Lazarus-1.5 will be allowed to play either of the other programs listed, but those other programs will not be allow to play each other as they are considered relatives. We cannot prevent programs from playing each other no matter what we do, they can always change the name and password. However this gives the programmers the ability to prevent multiple versions of his program from playing each other if he chooses. Most programmers probably log onto CGOS in order to play other peoples programs. From time to time I have put highly experimental and very different programs on CGOS and I don't care if they play themselves - they are not really different versions of the same program. In this case I always give them different names anyway. I pretty much always use the same password so I can control this easily with the name. - Don Rémi Coulom wrote: Don Dailey wrote: It would be great if you would provide recommendations for a simple conversion formula when you are ready based on this study. Also, if you have any suggestions in general for CGOS ratings the cgos-developers would be willing to listen to your suggestions. - Don My suggestion would be to tell programmers to use a different login each time they change version or hardware (most do that, already), and use bayeselo to rank the programs. This would be best if combined with a mechanism to recognize that two logins are versions of the same program (for instance, if they use the same password), and avoid pairing them. Regarding correspondance with human ranks, and handicap value, I cannot tell yet. It is very clear to me that the Elo-rating model is very wrong for the game of Go, because strength is not one-dimensional, especially when mixing bots and humans. The best way to evaluate a bot in terms of human rating is to make it play against humans, on KGS for instance. Unfortunately, there is no 9x9 rating there. I will compute 9x9 ratings with the KGS data I have. What I have observed with Crazy Stone is that gaining Elo points against humans is more difficult than gaining Elo points against GNU Go, which is more difficult than gaining Elo points against MC programs, which is more difficult than gaining Elo points against itself. But it is more an intuition than a scientific study. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Hi Rémi , Rémi Coulom: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Don Dailey wrote: It would be great if you would provide recommendations for a simple conversion formula when you are ready based on this study. Also, if you have any suggestions in general for CGOS ratings the cgos-developers would be willing to listen to your suggestions. - Don My suggestion would be to tell programmers to use a different login each time they change version or hardware (most do that, already), and use bayeselo to rank the programs. Sure, it should be recommended strongly. Before overall ratings, I was not so serious to change login names as I just want to know recent rating which is enough. In fact, I misestimated the time consumption of my latest version of ggmc and it lost many games by time for a week or so. I noticed it and have changed its setting of time control a few days ago. Its rating improved much and so, the difference between its overall (2011) and current (2043) ratings is relatively large. I strongly believe that this kind of _minor_ fixing are made frequently in past. As a conclusion, current overall ratings are hard to believe or, perhaps, may include lots of error. I'd like to suggest to postpone this excellent idea until almost all peticipants surely do change their login names if they modify, not only changing versions, their programs, and to exclude older programs from counting. -Hideki This would be best if combined with a mechanism to recognize that two logins are versions of the same program (for instance, if they use the same password), and avoid pairing them. Regarding correspondance with human ranks, and handicap value, I cannot tell yet. It is very clear to me that the Elo-rating model is very wrong for the game of Go, because strength is not one-dimensional, especially when mixing bots and humans. The best way to evaluate a bot in terms of human rating is to make it play against humans, on KGS for instance. Unfortunately, there is no 9x9 rating there. I will compute 9x9 ratings with the KGS data I have. What I have observed with Crazy Stone is that gaining Elo points against humans is more difficult than gaining Elo points against GNU Go, which is more difficult than gaining Elo points against MC programs, which is more difficult than gaining Elo points against itself. But it is more an intuition than a scientific study. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Isn't Greenpeep an alpha-beta searcher, not UCT/MC? Since Go ranks are based an handicap stones, and 100 ELO points implies a particular winning percentage, it would be an unlikely coincidence if 1 rank is 100 ELO points. Any web site that claims this must be wrong :) and should have little credibility. David The strongest bot on CGOS all time list seems to be greenpeep0.5.1 http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/cross/greenpeep0.5.1.html with a rating of 2621. This implies it is almost equal to a 5 Dan player - which doesn't sound right to me.However, this could be fluky since it is as at the extreme end of the scale. It would be great if this same program could play some strong humans at the equivalent time control on KGS at 9x9 and we could adjust the difference between ranks accordingly. I suspect there is more than 100 ELO between ranks at 9x9. - Don Don Dailey wrote: Christoph, Your bayeselo rating is 1942 on CGOS. I compiled a table that has all players with 50 games or more which can be found here: http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof2.html - Don Christoph Birk wrote: On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote: Christoph, Let me know when you are finished, what name you are playing under and I will do the bayeselo thing to get a better figure. I am playing using the 'tast-3k' account. Right, now I have 71 games and a rating of 1979 ELO. Also, I can throw out any games that were irregular if you can identify them, such as if a match started when you were not looking or your interface got glitchy or something. Since I added the GUI I lost no games due to software problems. Only a few won games lost to human stupidity :-) I will take a break over the holidays, maybe playing a few more games in the new year, but I guess for my purposes a zero-point 3k-AGA ~=~ 2000 CGOS-ELO is close enough. Unless we get some other (AGA or KGS) rated players it not make sense to get a more precise rating for the scale. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
David Fotland wrote: Isn't Greenpeep an alpha-beta searcher, not UCT/MC? Since Go ranks are based an handicap stones, and 100 ELO points implies a particular winning percentage, it would be an unlikely coincidence if 1 rank is 100 ELO points. Any web site that claims this must be wrong :) and should have little credibility. I don't believe it's 100 ELO either. It's probably something between 100 and 200. David The strongest bot on CGOS all time list seems to be greenpeep0.5.1 http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/cross/greenpeep0.5.1.html with a rating of 2621. This implies it is almost equal to a 5 Dan player - which doesn't sound right to me.However, this could be fluky since it is as at the extreme end of the scale. It would be great if this same program could play some strong humans at the equivalent time control on KGS at 9x9 and we could adjust the difference between ranks accordingly. I suspect there is more than 100 ELO between ranks at 9x9. - Don Don Dailey wrote: Christoph, Your bayeselo rating is 1942 on CGOS. I compiled a table that has all players with 50 games or more which can be found here: http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof2.html - Don Christoph Birk wrote: On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote: Christoph, Let me know when you are finished, what name you are playing under and I will do the bayeselo thing to get a better figure. I am playing using the 'tast-3k' account. Right, now I have 71 games and a rating of 1979 ELO. Also, I can throw out any games that were irregular if you can identify them, such as if a match started when you were not looking or your interface got glitchy or something. Since I added the GUI I lost no games due to software problems. Only a few won games lost to human stupidity :-) I will take a break over the holidays, maybe playing a few more games in the new year, but I guess for my purposes a zero-point 3k-AGA ~=~ 2000 CGOS-ELO is close enough. Unless we get some other (AGA or KGS) rated players it not make sense to get a more precise rating for the scale. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
On Dec 13, 2007 2:37 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am considering to enforce this basic protocol on the server soon: Programs of the same family will not be paired against each other. I frequently look at the games between my bot version more than I look at them with other bots. This is unfortunately a side-effect of having few (9x9) bots in the 1200-1400 ELO range. I like using similar names and the same password since it lets me keep my sanity when switching between machines! If the family feature is added, I'd like another mechanism to control the family settings. I suspect that a programmer's decision to have their bots play each other (or not) may change with time. It'd be nice if that was supported. PS: Will this new feature be committed into the subversion repository for CGOS? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
On Dec 13, 2007 3:09 PM, David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't Greenpeep an alpha-beta searcher, not UCT/MC? I could have sworn I heard it described as UCT/MC with MoGo-like enhancements. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
I don't want to add more mechanisms. You can build your own mechanism by making your own password naming convention or bot naming convention.For instance you can use the underscore character to build separate families of bots and still keep your own branding. We might at some point make a web page that groups bots by family so that it's publicly visible and easy to see which bots do not play each other. PS: Will this new feature be committed into the subversion repository for CGOS? Yes, when I do this I will use the sourceforge system. - Don Jason House wrote: On Dec 13, 2007 2:37 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am considering to enforce this basic protocol on the server soon: Programs of the same family will not be paired against each other. I frequently look at the games between my bot version more than I look at them with other bots. This is unfortunately a side-effect of having few (9x9) bots in the 1200-1400 ELO range. I like using similar names and the same password since it lets me keep my sanity when switching between machines! If the family feature is added, I'd like another mechanism to control the family settings. I suspect that a programmer's decision to have their bots play each other (or not) may change with time. It'd be nice if that was supported. PS: Will this new feature be committed into the subversion repository for CGOS? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
On Dec 13, 2007 4:01 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't want to add more mechanisms. You can build your own mechanism by making your own password naming convention or bot naming convention.For instance you can use the underscore character to build separate families of bots and still keep your own branding. And if I then lose interest in self-play games (because I've seen enough to prove to myself whatever I was looking for)? Do I then create a separate account with the same bot running on the same hardware and either discard historical data or manually combine the results? Maybe a more generic mechanism of opponent preferences would work? Then I could specify bots I don't want to play (my family members) or others I want to play more (my rival?). Obviously, the don't play might be restricted to bots in the same family or that use the same password. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Regarding correspondance with human ranks, and handicap value, I cannot tell yet. It is very clear to me that the Elo-rating model is very wrong for the game of Go, because strength is not one-dimensional, especially when mixing bots and humans. The best way to evaluate a bot in terms of human rating is to make it play against humans, on KGS for instance. Unfortunately, there is no 9x9 rating there. I will compute 9x9 ratings with the KGS data I have. I'm only interested in measuring the ELO gaps between 9x9 players of different (19x19) rankings. This you can do by simply taking the statistics of wins and losses between players of various strengths. I don't really know what you mean by one-dimensional. My understanding of playing strength is that it's not one-dimensional meaning that it is foiled by in-transitivities between players with different styles.You may be able to beat me, but I might be able to beat someone that you cannot. If that's what you are saying how does the kyu/dan system handle it that makes it superior to ELO for predicting who will win?Is there some mechanism that measures playing styles?I don't see this. What I THINK you mean is that the gap between various GO ranks is not consistent in ELO terms. In other words there is no single constant that works in my simple formula. I definitely think this is probably the case but surely it can be easily handled by a slightly more sophisticated formula that fits the curve. So surely, the average 2 dan player will beat the average 1 dan player some statistically measurable percentage of the time at 9x9 go. This is what I want to know.Then I want to know if that percentage is the same at different points in the scale. If not, then we find an appropriate fit statistically. Once this is done then we still have the problem of calibrating CGOS - we have to determine which ELO rating on CGOS corresponds to 1 dan (or some arbitrary AGA or KGS ranking.) Once all of this is done, we at least have something that doesn't yet exist. A credible way to claim your 9x9 program would likely hold it's own against a 19x19 player of a given level. Of course this will be somewhat noisy, as any ranking system is. It will be subject to in-transitivities just like ELO and go ranking are. But you have to admit that there has been talk about certain 9x9 programs playing at the dan level and so on. Technically this makes no sense, but intuitively we know exactly what we mean when we say that - we mean that it is the equal of a 1 dan 19x19 player. This is what I want to capture as a footnote on the 9x9 server. I agree with you about program playing different versions of themselves. I can throw out games where a program plays another verison of itself if you want to study that too (I would go by password.)Just let me know and I will run another hall of fame using that criteria or I can send you the data from cgos in a compact (1 line per game) representation if you think it would be useful to help you understand this. Or I can send you the pgn files I produced to be compatible with bayeselo. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Are you suggesting a mechanism that allows you to turn this off and on at will and that is separate from the naming and password convention? One thing I definitely would not do is allow you to select opponents you prefer to play or not to play - whatever control we have will be limited to our own bots. The main reason for CGOS was to ensure variety and guarantee that players could not be selective about their opponents the way bots on the chess servers are. It is claimed that many players on the chess servers manipulate their ratings by carefully selecting their opponents. I think this is CGOS strength, it does not allow this.This makes ratings far more trustworthy. This is also why you are not allowed to abort a game (once you see who your opponent is.) Otherwise it would be very easy to use this as a mechanism to control your own pairings. Do you have a suggestion for a specific mechanism for this? - Don Jason House wrote: On Dec 13, 2007 4:01 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't want to add more mechanisms. You can build your own mechanism by making your own password naming convention or bot naming convention.For instance you can use the underscore character to build separate families of bots and still keep your own branding. And if I then lose interest in self-play games (because I've seen enough to prove to myself whatever I was looking for)? Do I then create a separate account with the same bot running on the same hardware and either discard historical data or manually combine the results? Maybe a more generic mechanism of opponent preferences would work? Then I could specify bots I don't want to play (my family members) or others I want to play more (my rival?). Obviously, the don't play might be restricted to bots in the same family or that use the same password. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
On Dec 13, 2007 4:51 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you have a suggestion for a specific mechanism for this? I was mostly just thinking a file that cgos looks for that includes bot names and the preferences. The don't play list would need obvious restrictions like what you've already suggested. A preferred opponent was intended more to get additional games against a particular bot in a shorter period of time. I was thinking it'd be tough to do and would only affect the probability of playing a particular opponent. Honestly, I wouldn't care if these extra games didn't count for a rating. If the bias isn't too bad, maybe it wouldn't really matter that much. Here's a motivational example: I'm a bot owner who's noticed that against bot X, I lose 80% of my games because of some peculiar bug in my code. I fix that code and, like a well behaved CGOS participant, use a new login. I then have to wait for my rating to (somewhat) stabilize and then wait for the games against that bot to accumulate enough samples to be sure I fixed the problem. Letting new bots specify their starting rating may help this process. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Don Dailey wrote: I don't really know what you mean by one-dimensional. My understanding of playing strength is that it's not one-dimensional meaning that it is foiled by in-transitivities between players with different styles.You may be able to beat me, but I might be able to beat someone that you cannot. If that's what you are saying how does the kyu/dan system handle it that makes it superior to ELO for predicting who will win?Is there some mechanism that measures playing styles?I don't see this. That's what I am saying. The kyu/dan system does not handle it better. What I THINK you mean is that the gap between various GO ranks is not consistent in ELO terms. In other words there is no single constant that works in my simple formula. I definitely think this is probably the case but surely it can be easily handled by a slightly more sophisticated formula that fits the curve. This is not what I meant, but I agree. What I mean is that if human player H beats computer C1 65% of the time, and computer C2 also beats computer C1 65% of the time, then I would expect that H would be stronger than C2, especially if both C1 and C2 are MC programs. If it is the case, then it would make it difficult to compare human scale to computer scale. But that is just my intuition. For instance, against computers, I estimate that Crazy Stone improved about 3 stones between this summer and now. But it clearly did not improve 3 stones on KGS. I vaguely remember that Sylvain also noticed that MoGo could beat GNU go with a 4-stone handicap, but was only 2 stones stronger than GNU on KGS. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
What I mean is that if human player H beats computer C1 65% of the time, and computer C2 also beats computer C1 65% of the time, then I would expect that H would be stronger than C2, especially if both C1 and C2 are MC programs. If it is the case, then it would make it difficult to compare human scale to computer scale. But that is just my intuition. For instance, against computers, I estimate that Crazy Stone improved about 3 stones between this summer and now. But it clearly did not improve 3 stones on KGS. I vaguely remember that Sylvain also noticed that MoGo could beat GNU go with a 4-stone handicap, but was only 2 stones stronger than GNU on KGS. This happened in computer chess many years ago.There was a period of time when chess playing computers were relatively unknown but then suddenly became very common.This is anecdotal, but it appears that for a certain amount of time the computers continued to improve, but at the same time humans adapted very quickly to them. Humans quickly became educated. They didn't become educated until computers approached their playing strength. So there is a fairly significant ELO advantage to the human that has experience playing computers. I think it's very possible that this is what you observed.The advantage of a human however has limits. You are not going to beat a player 1000 ELO stronger just because you know how he plays. Also, we don't see any serious discrepancy in computer vs human ratings in chess although it was always imagined. If you look in the sky you can imagine interesting shapes, but only because you are looking for them. Whenever we think we observe something based on a few data points it's extremely subject to error. Thus people often believed that some given program might be 200 ELO stronger than other programs but that it would translate into something very modest against humans.This NEVER turned out to be true - it was fantasy based on the continuing need to believe that the improvements were just too good to be true. A little common sense will tell you that this cannot be true but to a very limited extent if any.You would have to believe that the in-transitive rubber band stretches to infinity. Or you have to do what Einstein did and regretted, which is to impose an artificial explanation such as some kind of constant that pushes this back at higher strength levels. The main point is that in computer chess computers improved approximately 2000 ELO against humans over a couple of decades or so.But when it's claimed that ELO improvement against other computers is 4 times that, you imply 8000 ELO points for computer vs computer! This is clearly not the case. That was generally the claim I heard - 100 ELO improvement but it's someones belief that against humans it's only about 25 ELO. Nonsense. I could see one things possibly happening however. You might make a real improvement that doesn't hit a human weakness that hard and at the local limited horizon it really may not translate to the same improvement against humans.But intransitivity in playing strength is like a rubber band.You can only stretch it so far and it fights back. You are not going to get A beats B 99% of the time, B beats C 99% of the time, but A cannot beat C.Not unless you go way out of your way to construct programs that have this behavior. I don't believe multi-dimensional playing strength is much of an issue. It exists, but it's not severe. You are not going to have to worry that some 4 dan player will beat the world champion because he happens to have a playing style that the world champion cannot handle. Otherwise all rating/ranking systems would be useless.And it would be easy to construct some really ludicrous cases of intransitivity. - Don Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Hi. My program greenpeep is currently UCT-based, with some MoGo-like enhancements and some additional learning. I described it more here: http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2007-October/011438.html http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2007-November/011865.html Regarding the current discussion, at this point I have very little data for greenpeep against humans. -Chris Rosin On Dec 13, 2007 12:09 PM, David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't Greenpeep an alpha-beta searcher, not UCT/MC? Since Go ranks are based an handicap stones, and 100 ELO points implies a particular winning percentage, it would be an unlikely coincidence if 1 rank is 100 ELO points. Any web site that claims this must be wrong :) and should have little credibility. David The strongest bot on CGOS all time list seems to be greenpeep0.5.1 http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/cross/greenpeep0.5.1.html with a rating of 2621. This implies it is almost equal to a 5 Dan player - which doesn't sound right to me.However, this could be fluky since it is as at the extreme end of the scale. It would be great if this same program could play some strong humans at the equivalent time control on KGS at 9x9 and we could adjust the difference between ranks accordingly. I suspect there is more than 100 ELO between ranks at 9x9. - Don Don Dailey wrote: Christoph, Your bayeselo rating is 1942 on CGOS. I compiled a table that has all players with 50 games or more which can be found here: http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof2.html - Don Christoph Birk wrote: On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote: Christoph, Let me know when you are finished, what name you are playing under and I will do the bayeselo thing to get a better figure. I am playing using the 'tast-3k' account. Right, now I have 71 games and a rating of 1979 ELO. Also, I can throw out any games that were irregular if you can identify them, such as if a match started when you were not looking or your interface got glitchy or something. Since I added the GUI I lost no games due to software problems. Only a few won games lost to human stupidity :-) I will take a break over the holidays, maybe playing a few more games in the new year, but I guess for my purposes a zero-point 3k-AGA ~=~ 2000 CGOS-ELO is close enough. Unless we get some other (AGA or KGS) rated players it not make sense to get a more precise rating for the scale. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Le mercredi 12 décembre 2007, Ben Lambrechts a écrit : How do AGA ratings compare to KGS? Sensei's Library is your friend ;o) http://senseis.xmp.net/?RankWorldwideComparison I believe this page has not been updated since last year change on kgs ranking scale. Kgs have the big advantage of letting some bots get a rank, which is very convenient. Alain ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote: Christoph, Let me know when you are finished, what name you are playing under and I will do the bayeselo thing to get a better figure. I am playing using the 'tast-3k' account. Right, now I have 71 games and a rating of 1979 ELO. Also, I can throw out any games that were irregular if you can identify them, such as if a match started when you were not looking or your interface got glitchy or something. Since I added the GUI I lost no games due to software problems. Only a few won games lost to human stupidity :-) I will take a break over the holidays, maybe playing a few more games in the new year, but I guess for my purposes a zero-point 3k-AGA ~=~ 2000 CGOS-ELO is close enough. Unless we get some other (AGA or KGS) rated players it not make sense to get a more precise rating for the scale. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
It looks like my (3k AGA) CGOS rating (tast-3k) is converging around 2000 ELO. That gives us a zero-point but we need at least one more rated player (better more) to get the scale. If you would like to use my GUI please contact me by private email at ccbirk at gmail dot com. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Are you playing on CGOS? Did you actually build your own GUI for this? I don't want people playing on CGOS as a general rule except under controlled circumstance for this purpose, but not just for fun. I discovered that it's easy to use gtpadapter from gogui and play on CGOS. The only problem is that you have to be very careful to avoid illegal moves such as KO and suicide. Probably a good player would rarely do this but I played 2 or 3 games (not taking them seriously) and forfeited due to playing quickly without checking around. - Don Christoph Birk wrote: It looks like my (3k AGA) CGOS rating (tast-3k) is converging around 2000 ELO. That gives us a zero-point but we need at least one more rated player (better more) to get the scale. If you would like to use my GUI please contact me by private email at ccbirk at gmail dot com. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote: Are you playing on CGOS? Did you actually build your own GUI for this? As I wrote in a previous email, I re-used my 'myCtest' program but replaced the 'genmove' command with a simple GUI. Just took me a few hours. I don't want people playing on CGOS as a general rule except under controlled circumstance for this purpose, but not just for fun. Don't worry, I don't plan to play for fun on CGOS. I just wanted to establish a conversion from ELO rating to 'human rank'. Now we need 1 or 2 stronger players to get the scale. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Christoph, Let me know when you are finished, what name you are playing under and I will do the bayeselo thing to get a better figure. Also, I can throw out any games that were irregular if you can identify them, such as if a match started when you were not looking or your interface got glitchy or something. - Don Christoph Birk wrote: It looks like my (3k AGA) CGOS rating (tast-3k) is converging around 2000 ELO. That gives us a zero-point but we need at least one more rated player (better more) to get the scale. If you would like to use my GUI please contact me by private email at ccbirk at gmail dot com. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
I think AGA and KGS are pretty close. AGA is a real rating system in that ratings are earned in sanctioned tournaments so they are not disrupted by casual games. http://www.usgo.org/ratings/default.html European ratings (also from tournaments) are perhaps 2 stones tougher. Many think they are more reasonable, since most feel the top of the amateur rating should be 7 dan or lower, and top AGA ratings are higher than that. Top pros that have participated in AGA tournaments have ratings about 10 dan, and there are many amateur 8 dans. Japanese ratings are less tough. Japanese amateur ratings can be purchased, with a test, so there has been inflation, and I don't think there is a national rating organization like in USA and Europe. Korean and Chinese are very tough, since they think a 1 dan amateur should be close to professional strength. So, I'm AGA 3 dan, but I would have a tough time playing as a 1 dan in Europe, and I play at 4 dan in clubs in Japan. I tried playing in a club as 3 dan in China once, and got totally crushed. My preference would be a scale that is fixed at the top, with 9 dan pros at 9 dan. This would put 1 dan pros at about 7 dan and top amateurs at 6 dan, with a few 7 dans. This is pretty close to the European scale. Top tournament pros almost never lose to pro 1 dans, so there are 300 or more ELO points between the top amateurs and the top professionals. So perhaps top human play is 3500 or more on the cgos 19x19 scale. That's 12 ranks above 2000, with the higher ranks having more ELO points per rank. David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:37 PM To: computer-go Subject: Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs? I feel that we probably need several more players to have much accuracy, but I don't mind starting the best educated guess we can muster - it can be modified at a later time. How do AGA ratings compare to other systems? Is any particular system considered (defacto or otherwise) more of a standard than some other? How do AGA ratings compare to KGS? - Don Christoph Birk wrote: It looks like my (3k AGA) CGOS rating (tast-3k) is converging around 2000 ELO. That gives us a zero-point but we need at least one more rated player (better more) to get the scale. If you would like to use my GUI please contact me by private email at ccbirk at gmail dot com. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
I have lurked here for a long time, I find this newsletter very interesting, because I play Go, I am not a programmer. I agree with everything Mr Foltand had to say, but would like to add a small bit about IGS ranks. A few years ago, IGS changed its ranking system so as to anchor from the top, ie a 9d on IGS was a 9d pro, making it the closest to real world rankings. I think the strength of IGS ranks has slipped a bit since cyberoro came online, but is still probably closest to real world ranks. I would suggest not using AGA or KGS or any other ranking system for establishing your CGOS ranks, recruit some IGS players with solid (over 100 rated games) ranks, and have them play with your various engines. back to lurking, Michael David Fotland wrote: I think AGA and KGS are pretty close. AGA is a real rating system in that ratings are earned in sanctioned tournaments so they are not disrupted by casual games. http://www.usgo.org/ratings/default.html European ratings (also from tournaments) are perhaps 2 stones tougher. Many think they are more reasonable, since most feel the top of the amateur rating should be 7 dan or lower, and top AGA ratings are higher than that. Top pros that have participated in AGA tournaments have ratings about 10 dan, and there are many amateur 8 dans. Japanese ratings are less tough. Japanese amateur ratings can be purchased, with a test, so there has been inflation, and I don't think there is a national rating organization like in USA and Europe. Korean and Chinese are very tough, since they think a 1 dan amateur should be close to professional strength. So, I'm AGA 3 dan, but I would have a tough time playing as a 1 dan in Europe, and I play at 4 dan in clubs in Japan. I tried playing in a club as 3 dan in China once, and got totally crushed. My preference would be a scale that is fixed at the top, with 9 dan pros at 9 dan. This would put 1 dan pros at about 7 dan and top amateurs at 6 dan, with a few 7 dans. This is pretty close to the European scale. Top tournament pros almost never lose to pro 1 dans, so there are 300 or more ELO points between the top amateurs and the top professionals. So perhaps top human play is 3500 or more on the cgos 19x19 scale. That's 12 ranks above 2000, with the higher ranks having more ELO points per rank. David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:37 PM To: computer-go Subject: Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs? I feel that we probably need several more players to have much accuracy, but I don't mind starting the best educated guess we can muster - it can be modified at a later time. How do AGA ratings compare to other systems? Is any particular system considered (defacto or otherwise) more of a standard than some other? How do AGA ratings compare to KGS? - Don Christoph Birk wrote: It looks like my (3k AGA) CGOS rating (tast-3k) is converging around 2000 ELO. That gives us a zero-point but we need at least one more rated player (better more) to get the scale. If you would like to use my GUI please contact me by private email at ccbirk at gmail dot com. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Christoph Birk wrote: On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote: It would be awkward at best. I could build a client to do this, but the human would have to be willing to sit and play games at the moment they were scheduled. You are right ... it's very awkward. I lost one game by typo and another by time. I added a simple GUI to my program to play on CGOS ... but I am not doing very well :-( Any (dan) volunteer(s) ? Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Christoph Birk wrote: On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Christoph Birk wrote: On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote: It would be awkward at best. I could build a client to do this, but the human would have to be willing to sit and play games at the moment they were scheduled. You are right ... it's very awkward. I lost one game by typo and another by time. I added a simple GUI to my program to play on CGOS ... but I am not doing very well :-( Any (dan) volunteer(s) ? Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ I noticed handtalk on CGOS. Does anybody knows if it is the Chinese program ? I thought it may be a human player, because it does not play so many games in a row, and appeared when we talked about gtpdisplay. If it is really the Chinese HandTalk program, then it is stronger than I would have expected of a classical program. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Joel Veness wrote: I have been thinking about making a version of Goanna (~2250 on CGOS) public, once it plays in a human friendly way. Thanks, Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Robert Jasiek wrote: Where can one play the latest versions of MoGo or other, similarly strong programs? It is said that some programs are on KGS, but I cannot find them. How to find them? Is it possible to play against them as a human on CGOS? CGOS is designed for computer/computer only.You could modify the client to accept moves or build a client and pretend you are a bot - but you have no control over the scheduling algorithm - you would be forced to accept whatever pairing and color was assigned to you. But Mogo is now a free program.You can get a copy, find some good hardware and play at 9x9 and 19x19. - Don I, German 5d, would want to play even games on 19x19, 13x13, or 9x9 to learn more about their current playing level. How would that be used for assessing the program's strength? E.g., KGS ratings are inaccurate by +-600; the standard deviation of an EGF high dan rating I subjectively estimate as roughly +-70. So IMO ratings are not useful to assess a program's strength against humans. When will we see the strong programs entering real world tournaments? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Where can one play the latest versions of MoGo or other, similarly strong programs? It is said that some programs are on KGS, but I cannot find them. How to find them? Is it possible to play against them as a human on CGOS? CGOS is designed for computer/computer only.You could modify the client to accept moves or build a client and pretend you are a bot - but you have no control over the scheduling algorithm - you would be forced to accept whatever pairing and color was assigned to you. But Mogo is now a free program.You can get a copy, find some good hardware and play at 9x9 and 19x19. But the released version is probably not the latest. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
On 12/4/07, Chris Fant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where can one play the latest versions of MoGo or other, similarly strong programs? But Mogo is now a free program.You can get a copy, find some good hardware and play at 9x9 and 19x19. But the released version is probably not the latest. Most strong bots will probably re-release when significant enhancements have been made. I think recent MoGo updates have been to support enhanced hardware (AKA, use MPI). On a normal computer, I'd assume it plays at about the same level. What I consider more of an issue is that MoGo seems to be very sensitive to (undocumented) configuration options. Such issues probably exist with all engines. It'd probably be smarter to set up a day where strong bots would connect to CGOS and invite dan-level players to challenge them. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
What I consider more of an issue is that MoGo seems to be very sensitive to (undocumented) configuration options. Such issues probably exist with all engines. It'd probably be smarter to set up a day where strong bots would connect to CGOS and invite dan-level players to challenge them. You mean KGS, right? I don't think humans on CGOS are an appropriate direction for that server. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
On 12/4/07, Chris Fant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I consider more of an issue is that MoGo seems to be very sensitive to (undocumented) configuration options. Such issues probably exist with all engines. It'd probably be smarter to set up a day where strong bots would connect to CGOS and invite dan-level players to challenge them. You mean KGS, right? I don't think humans on CGOS are an appropriate direction for that server. Yes, KGS, sorry. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Robert Jasiek wrote: Where can one play the latest versions of MoGo or other, similarly strong programs? It is said that some programs are on KGS, but I cannot find them. How to find them? Is it possible to play against them as a human on CGOS? I, German 5d, would want to play even games on 19x19, 13x13, or 9x9 to learn more about their current playing level. How would that be used for assessing the program's strength? E.g., KGS ratings are inaccurate by +-600; the standard deviation of an EGF high dan rating I subjectively estimate as roughly +-70. So IMO ratings are not useful to assess a program's strength against humans. When will we see the strong programs entering real world tournaments? Hi, 13x13 StoneCrazy is currently connected to CGOS (computer go room). It will stay there for about 24h. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
David Doshay wrote: When tournament organizers allow and encourage it! Some (local) European tournaments would allow it. (Some have already done it.) Encourage - not yet :) -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
At the Cotsen Open the encouragement is a prize for the best program. It has not been very satisfying for me to have SlugGo win it the past two years by the default of being the only program present. I would be much happier to have others show up too. I have heard from one programmer who says he will enter a program next year. In the past the prize was cash, but at my request they changed it to a trophy this year ... money disappears but trophies last. If others are going to enter programs next year I encourage them to tell the organizers which is more valuable to them. Cheers, David On 4, Dec 2007, at 10:27 AM, Robert Jasiek wrote: David Doshay wrote: When tournament organizers allow and encourage it! Some (local) European tournaments would allow it. (Some have already done it.) Encourage - not yet :) -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Robert Jasiek wrote: Where can one play the latest versions of MoGo or other, similarly strong programs? Would it be possible to publish the MonteGNU code? If yes, then a few dan-players could play each at least 20 games against it and publish their results. That would allow for a rough estimate of MonteGNU's strength (9x9 CGOS = 2100 ELO) and a (first) normalization point for CGOS. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Rémi Coulom wrote: Hi, 13x13 StoneCrazy is currently connected to CGOS (computer go room). It will stay there for about 24h. Rémi So far, it lost 1 game against 3d, and 2 games against 2d. In this game, it started a nice ko fight at move 69 (but lost): http://files.gokgs.com/games/2007/12/4/BadRobot-StoneCrazy.sgf Semeais in the corner with a nakade generate huge catastrophes. Unless I fix this, it will still lose to 5k players when they occur, whatever computational power I use. I have also connected Crazy Stone on a core 2 duo to 9x9 CGOS, and will leave it there for a while. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Some of the MonteGNU code was just released on CVS. Check out Gnugo's development pages. Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster - Original Message From: Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2007 12:14:24 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs? Robert Jasiek wrote: Where can one play the latest versions of MoGo or other, similarly strong programs? Would it be possible to publish the MonteGNU code? If yes, then a few dan-players could play each at least 20 games against it and publish their results. That would allow for a rough estimate of MonteGNU's strength (9x9 CGOS = 2100 ELO) and a (first) normalization point for CGOS. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Let's make a wild guess.What if I made the web site report approximate strength using the following formula: dan = (elo - 2300) / 100 So a 2400 player is 1 dan, a 2500 player is 2 dan etc. Here is a table: 2300 - 1.0 kyu 2310 - 0.9 kyu 2320 - 0.8 kyu ... 2400 - 1.0 dan 2410 - 1.1 dan Does this scale and these constants seem reasonable? Am I off a class in either direction? note: this is only to estimate the playing strength relative to a 19x19 player since there is no real system that makes sense for 9x9. I would simple put this on the crosstable web pages in parenthesis. e.g. Rated: 2410 (1.1d est.) - Don Christoph Birk wrote: Robert Jasiek wrote: Where can one play the latest versions of MoGo or other, similarly strong programs? Would it be possible to publish the MonteGNU code? If yes, then a few dan-players could play each at least 20 games against it and publish their results. That would allow for a rough estimate of MonteGNU's strength (9x9 CGOS = 2100 ELO) and a (first) normalization point for CGOS. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
terry mcintyre wrote: Some of the MonteGNU code was just released on CVS. Check out Gnugo's development pages. Don't expect that code to do better than 2000 on CGOS though (mgtest2). The remaining code used by MonteGNU is still too messy. /Gunnar ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote: note: this is only to estimate the playing strength relative to a 19x19 player since there is no real system that makes sense for 9x9. I would simple put this on the crosstable web pages in parenthesis. e.g. Rated: 2410 (1.1d est.) I don't think this makes sense until it's calibrated. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Gunnar Farnebäck wrote: terry mcintyre wrote: Some of the MonteGNU code was just released on CVS. Check out Gnugo's development pages. Don't expect that code to do better than 2000 on CGOS though (mgtest2). The remaining code used by MonteGNU is still too messy. That's why I asked for 'MonteGNU'. It has a well established rating on CGOS (23670 games). I there any other (fairly) strong CGOS 9x9 program that's available for download AND that has an reliable rating on CGOS? Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
MoGo. But it seems that it hasn't been playing recently (anyway, you would have had no idea of the settings and hardware used). You could play against it on your own hardware to understand it's strength against a human, and let it get a CGOS rating using the same hardware whenever you are not playing it. On Dec 4, 2007 4:13 PM, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Gunnar Farnebäck wrote: terry mcintyre wrote: Some of the MonteGNU code was just released on CVS. Check out Gnugo's development pages. Don't expect that code to do better than 2000 on CGOS though (mgtest2). The remaining code used by MonteGNU is still too messy. That's why I asked for 'MonteGNU'. It has a well established rating on CGOS (23670 games). I there any other (fairly) strong CGOS 9x9 program that's available for download AND that has an reliable rating on CGOS? Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Chris Fant wrote: MoGo. But it seems that it hasn't been playing recently (anyway, you would have had no idea of the settings and hardware used). You could play against it on your own hardware to understand it's strength against a human, and let it get a CGOS rating using the same hardware whenever you are not playing it. Yes, that would work. Some humans also could play on CGOS (just for a while) to establish a conversion from CGOS-ELO to human-ranks. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Christoph Birk wrote: On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Chris Fant wrote: MoGo. But it seems that it hasn't been playing recently (anyway, you would have had no idea of the settings and hardware used). You could play against it on your own hardware to understand it's strength against a human, and let it get a CGOS rating using the same hardware whenever you are not playing it. Yes, that would work. Some humans also could play on CGOS (just for a while) to establish a conversion from CGOS-ELO to human-ranks. Christoph It would be awkward at best. I could build a client to do this, but the human would have to be willing to sit and play games at the moment they were scheduled. It would be better to get a handful of players to AGREE in advance to play particular programs on KGS but under very CGOS like conditions including the time control. They should know in advance they are part of the experiment and that they should not experiment but should play full strength and not abandon the games or take-back moves, etc. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Maybe it should be an official tournament on KGS. We should probably make it invitation only for bots and open to 1d+ from KGS. For invitation, maybe it should be 2200+ ELO bots? Looking at http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/standings.html, that seems to be: GreenPeep (2550) Zen (2472) MoGo (not listed, but obviously near the top) Goanna (2251) CrazyStone (2214, 2416?) Leela (2205) Valkyria (2202) If the threshold is 2400 ELO, the list may be more reasonable: GreenPeep (2550) Zen (2472) CrazyStone (2416?) MoGo (...) On 12/4/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christoph Birk wrote: On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Chris Fant wrote: MoGo. But it seems that it hasn't been playing recently (anyway, you would have had no idea of the settings and hardware used). You could play against it on your own hardware to understand it's strength against a human, and let it get a CGOS rating using the same hardware whenever you are not playing it. Yes, that would work. Some humans also could play on CGOS (just for a while) to establish a conversion from CGOS-ELO to human-ranks. Christoph It would be awkward at best. I could build a client to do this, but the human would have to be willing to sit and play games at the moment they were scheduled. It would be better to get a handful of players to AGREE in advance to play particular programs on KGS but under very CGOS like conditions including the time control. They should know in advance they are part of the experiment and that they should not experiment but should play full strength and not abandon the games or take-back moves, etc. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote: Yes, that would work. Some humans also could play on CGOS (just for a while) to establish a conversion from CGOS-ELO to human-ranks. It would be awkward at best. I could build a client to do this, but the human would have to be willing to sit and play games at the moment they were scheduled. It would be better to get a handful of players to AGREE in advance to play particular programs on KGS but under very CGOS like conditions including the time control. They should know in advance they are part of the experiment and that they should not experiment but should play full strength and not abandon the games or take-back moves, etc. Yes, this would be better ... but will it happen? I quickly hacked my program to allow me to make moves and I am playing currently as test-3k (my AGA rating) (so much for 'C' beeing slow for prototyping :-) Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
I saw that you made an illegal move! The way to do this is to the take the viewing client and hack it. Then you would get a nice gui and legal move testing (at the least the package to do legal move testing is there even if it's not being used.) If you are typing your moves in manually, you could at least pull the object oriented gogame package out and use it to verify the moves so you don't mistype an illegal move. It's dirt simple to use. I could probably do a gui since I plan to build a graphical engine client anyway.But I don't really want humans playing except as a special experiment. - Don Christoph Birk wrote: On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote: Yes, that would work. Some humans also could play on CGOS (just for a while) to establish a conversion from CGOS-ELO to human-ranks. It would be awkward at best. I could build a client to do this, but the human would have to be willing to sit and play games at the moment they were scheduled. It would be better to get a handful of players to AGREE in advance to play particular programs on KGS but under very CGOS like conditions including the time control. They should know in advance they are part of the experiment and that they should not experiment but should play full strength and not abandon the games or take-back moves, etc. Yes, this would be better ... but will it happen? I quickly hacked my program to allow me to make moves and I am playing currently as test-3k (my AGA rating) (so much for 'C' beeing slow for prototyping :-) Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote: It would be awkward at best. I could build a client to do this, but the human would have to be willing to sit and play games at the moment they were scheduled. You are right ... it's very awkward. I lost one game by typo and another by time. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote: But I don't really want humans playing except as a special experiment. I agree. But it's an interesting experiment ... Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
I was wondering if gogui could be used - it would have to emulate a go program somehow. But gogui is a controller, not a program. However I know it comes with all kinds of filters to do various things. If it can be made to act like a go engine (where a human is the brains) then it could be connected to the cgo3.tcl script directly. - Don Rémi Coulom wrote: Don Dailey wrote: I saw that you made an illegal move! The way to do this is to the take the viewing client and hack it. Then you would get a nice gui and legal move testing (at the least the package to do legal move testing is there even if it's not being used.) If you are typing your moves in manually, you could at least pull the object oriented gogame package out and use it to verify the moves so you don't mistype an illegal move. It's dirt simple to use. I could probably do a gui since I plan to build a graphical engine client anyway.But I don't really want humans playing except as a special experiment. - Don Note that the gtpdisplay tool that comes with gogui does this already. You enter moves in the GUI, and they are sent as reply to the genmove command. http://gogui.sourceforge.net/doc/reference-gtpdisplay.html Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
How does it deal with other gtp commands sent to it?Perhaps it can be used. Maybe Christoph can experiment with it. - Don Rémi Coulom wrote: Don Dailey wrote: I saw that you made an illegal move! The way to do this is to the take the viewing client and hack it. Then you would get a nice gui and legal move testing (at the least the package to do legal move testing is there even if it's not being used.) If you are typing your moves in manually, you could at least pull the object oriented gogame package out and use it to verify the moves so you don't mistype an illegal move. It's dirt simple to use. I could probably do a gui since I plan to build a graphical engine client anyway.But I don't really want humans playing except as a special experiment. - Don Note that the gtpdisplay tool that comes with gogui does this already. You enter moves in the GUI, and they are sent as reply to the genmove command. http://gogui.sourceforge.net/doc/reference-gtpdisplay.html Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
I just tried gtpdisplay and it worked the first time!The only problem is that I tried to make an illegal ko move. On linux, I just put gtpdisplay as the name of the program and it worked. It looks like it could also be used to watch your program play on CGOS, just provide a program name as an argument to the program. I don't see any way to make it reject superko however - so you must take care not to make a superko move. - Don Christoph Birk wrote: On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote: Yes, that would work. Some humans also could play on CGOS (just for a while) to establish a conversion from CGOS-ELO to human-ranks. It would be awkward at best. I could build a client to do this, but the human would have to be willing to sit and play games at the moment they were scheduled. It would be better to get a handful of players to AGREE in advance to play particular programs on KGS but under very CGOS like conditions including the time control. They should know in advance they are part of the experiment and that they should not experiment but should play full strength and not abandon the games or take-back moves, etc. Yes, this would be better ... but will it happen? I quickly hacked my program to allow me to make moves and I am playing currently as test-3k (my AGA rating) (so much for 'C' beeing slow for prototyping :-) Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
You must also avoid suicide moves! I also tried playing on top of an existing stone and it didn't allow that - but any other kind of illegal move (by cgos rules) is passed through and causes a CGOS forfeit. There is a config file option, perhaps there is way to configure it to a particular set of rules? - Don Don Dailey wrote: I just tried gtpdisplay and it worked the first time!The only problem is that I tried to make an illegal ko move. On linux, I just put gtpdisplay as the name of the program and it worked. It looks like it could also be used to watch your program play on CGOS, just provide a program name as an argument to the program. I don't see any way to make it reject superko however - so you must take care not to make a superko move. - Don Christoph Birk wrote: On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote: Yes, that would work. Some humans also could play on CGOS (just for a while) to establish a conversion from CGOS-ELO to human-ranks. It would be awkward at best. I could build a client to do this, but the human would have to be willing to sit and play games at the moment they were scheduled. It would be better to get a handful of players to AGREE in advance to play particular programs on KGS but under very CGOS like conditions including the time control. They should know in advance they are part of the experiment and that they should not experiment but should play full strength and not abandon the games or take-back moves, etc. Yes, this would be better ... but will it happen? I quickly hacked my program to allow me to make moves and I am playing currently as test-3k (my AGA rating) (so much for 'C' beeing slow for prototyping :-) Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
Hi Christoph, I have been thinking about making a version of Goanna (~2250 on CGOS) public, once it plays in a human friendly way. At the moment, it is nearly unusable for fun human vs computer matches because of a lack of opening book (slow first few moves), and ridiculous endgame play. Considering how much time I have been putting into this project lately, it is not going to be happening till at least the end of January. Joel On Dec 5, 2007 8:13 AM, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Gunnar Farnebäck wrote: terry mcintyre wrote: Some of the MonteGNU code was just released on CVS. Check out Gnugo's development pages. Don't expect that code to do better than 2000 on CGOS though (mgtest2). The remaining code used by MonteGNU is still too messy. That's why I asked for 'MonteGNU'. It has a well established rating on CGOS (23670 games). I there any other (fairly) strong CGOS 9x9 program that's available for download AND that has an reliable rating on CGOS? Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
